- cross-posted to:
- programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- programmerhumor@lemmy.ml
You must log in or # to comment.
.JXL for the win
it supports transparency and produces small file sizes compared to PNG while looking pretty similarly. fuck Microsoft in particular for not supporting it.
may i introduce you to our lord and saviour: Don’t “Accept” image/webp
Ah yes, this addon will make a fine addition to my collection.
WebP has all the functionality of jpg, png, and gif while still being a smaller filesize. It has baseline support across browsers and devices. I’m no Google simp and work to de-google my family and workplace but this is a hill I will die on. Webp currently the best image file format.
If loser companies would support it I’d say AV1 Image File Format (AVIF) is the best.
Webp currently the best image file format.
Out of the widely supported ones, it’s quite good, yeah. Overall, I’d say JPEG XL is the better one. Ironically, only Safari supports it out of the box. Firefox requires a Nightly version with tweaking in
about:config. Chrome used to have a feature flag, but has since removed it.The website mentions
Migrating to JPEG XL reduces storage costs because servers can store a single JPEG XL file to serve both JPEG and JPEG XL clients.
Does anyone know how that works?
I think compatibility was also being taken into account here. When not looking at compatibility, JXL is the best hands down. It’s criminal how little software supports it.
It is. The sentiment comes from majority of Americans using Apple operating systems, which refused to support WebP until recently.
Webp’s purpose is to display images on web pages in a format that allows fast loading and rendering. When a user downloads or views an image it should be served in a better format. Webp serves it’s purpose perfectly. Don’t try to download a background of a webpage with the expectation that it will be in a format that is not beneficial to the pages function.
When a user downloads or views an image it should be served in a better format.
tell that to google chrome
I believe they’ve made the point that it’s not chrome’s fault, but the site’s/user’s - images displayed on websites should be webp to benefit from optimizations for displaying images, but download links should be a different format. The error would be either the user downloading the images from the display instead of the download (including from sites that do not offer images for downloading purposes?), or the website not including separate versions for download where relevant.
I’m not necessarily sure if that’s a good take, but that’s my interpretation of what’s being said.
At this point I think Facebook messenger and internet explorer are the only ones that don’t support it. Oh and maybe the ISS.
WebP was created in 2010, and the ISS switched to Linux in 2013. So there is a possibility that at least one piece of software that’s running up there supports WebP.
I actually use it for creating thumbnails for a sorta niche application. The resulting files are quite small and the quality is fine. I do remember it being a pain in the ass to deal with ~10 years ago.
The first part is wrong. And the second part is mostly wrong. Stop whining
Pro tip: If discord is complaing your screenshots are too large convert them to avif or webp. Now you don’t need nitro
I have never had a screenshot exceeding 40 MB. That is humongous.
Screenshoting modded minecraft on a 4k panel does it reliably for me
If you screenshot computer/phone interfaces (text, buttons, lots of flat colors with adjacent pixels the exact same color), the default PNG algorithm does a great job of keeping the file size small. If you screenshot a photograph, though, the PNG algorithm makes the file size huge, because it’s just really poorly optimized for re-encoding images that are already JPG.
What if I want to screenshot my cocaine-fueled rant to my ex and mistakenly send it to said ex instead of my homies?
Then you need more cocaine.
so sad to see so many google simps blinding defending this crap
Never understood why jepgXL didn’t win out
It’s slowly marching along with the reimplementation of its reference decoder in rust. That should hopefully satisfy google and mozilla’s demands and get them to adopt it in their browsers.
Because Google didn’t invent it, and Google decides what does and doesn’t get added to the Internet.
Google were literally one of the three organisations who worked on the standard, and the top contributor to the reference implementation works there.
It’s different people who develop and who decide.
And then they killed it. It was Google pulling support in Chrome that killed JPEG-XL’s momentum.
It was the Joint Picture Experts Group that invented it, so Google had no ownership over it, unlike WebP.
Google’s stance on JPEG XL is ambiguous, as it has contributed to the format but refrained from shipping an implementation of it in its browser. Support in Chromium and Chromeweb browsers was introduced for testing April 1, 2021[29] and removed on December 9, 2022 – with support removed in version 110.[30][31]The Chrome team cited a lack of interest from the ecosystem, insufficient improvements, and a wish to focus on improving existing formats as reasons for removing JPEG XL support.[29][32][30]
It was the Joint Picture Experts Group that invented it, so Google had no ownership over it, unlike WebP.
No, JPEG called for submission of proposals to define the new standard, and Google submitted its own PIK format, which provided much of the basis for what would become the JXL standard (the other primary contribution being Cloudinary’s FUIF).
Ultimately, I think most of the discussion around browser support thinks too small. Image formats are used for web display, sure, but they’re also used for so many other things. Digital imaging is used in medicine (where TIFF dominates), print, photography, video, etc.
I’m excited about JPEG XL as a replacement for TIFF and raw photography sensor data, including for printing and medical imaging. WebP, AVIF, HEIF, etc. really are only aiming for replacing web distributed images on a screen.
So Google contributed to it, but ultimately didn’t invent it and doesn’t own it. In other words, what I said.
As opposed to WebP, which not only do they own, they also own several patents for that cover the entire bitstream. They offer a patent license that is conditional on not suing them. So they basically own and control WebP entirely. They do not own, nor do they control, JPEG-XL. Google owns patents that cover a portion of JPEG-XL, but don’t have full control.
The compression technique it used was patented, and the licence fee was extortionate. By the time the patent expired, other, royalty-free, techniques were available that outperformed it.You’re thinking of jpeg2000
Oops. I’d somehow missed that there was now a third kind of JPEG.
Yes, I would like to waste 500 KB over the wire for an image of indistinguishable quality
Quality loss? Webp supports lossless.
So does JPEG. It doesn’t mean that people (will) use it for that.
Actually? I didnt know that. Is it used often? Any downsides ?
Practically never because it’s rubbish. The only possible use is on old precision machines that don’t support newer standards, like medical imaging.
I hate that Messenger doesn’t support webp. Makes sharing from Lemmy quite annoying. Signal takes webp though, no prob.
I screen shot and crop every meme i want to share from Lemmy. It is tedious.
I have a better solution that I found out by accident.
So you initiate the sharing, right, then before you select the Messenger app (or whichever app that doesn’t handle webp), you click the little edit button on the image above the shareable apps. That brings up cropping and other adjustments. But from here, you can just hit the big Share button immediately to share the image practically losslessly (without cropping mistakes and such). It brings up the share thing again but this time the image will be in a shareable format, presumably PNG(?).
Spread the word!
(This is on Android btw.)
Webp is good and this meme is shit and played out
its interesting to me that this is only really an issue on proprietary OS’s (mac/windows) as i’ve never had an issue with any image or video formats when using linux. i use all three but linux is my primary OS. mac/windows mostly stay at work.
OS doesn’t affect what web servers accept webp, which is 90% of the use case for most people. The vast majority of people use computers as a web browser only
That’s true, but its not always about the server, people tend to download images/memes/etc with the intent to edit/share. If you were on macos and happened to download a webp image in the 10 years that Apple didn’t support them, you were in for some googling and/or frustration.
I grew up on macOS, until a few years ago where I actually had my own personal computer for the first time, which had windows pre installed, so i used that and like it a lot more than macOS, i just felt so much more free, and the general workflow felt more intuitive to me, then, early this year, i switched to Linux and there’s no way in hell I’ll ever go back. In just a couple months I learned more about how computers worked than I did over something like 12 years of using computers as a teen. It’s really crazy to me how once you get something set up on Linux, it just works, and all of the documentation is open and detailed!
While all of that is true, the thing is that most people just don’t care. They just use two or three programs (poorly) and don’t really care about the underlying system, never mind the computer. That’s why windows is so entrenched.
Windows is mostly so entrenched because Microsoft applied monopolistic practices in the 90’s to ensure it was the most used operating system thereby cementing their place for decades to come.
Then, they applied monopolistic practices in the cloud industry to ensure vendor lock-in at the OS level with their most popular services (like Office).
You are right that most people just don’t care though. I don’t blame them, there is enough stress in the world.
Os X has supported webp for years.
yeah macOS supports webp now (since ~2020), but it lacked support for a decade, causing frustration for its users and anyone trying to support macOS/Safari.
DAT and DDC were great as well. Beta too. But sometimes good enough (like JPG and VHS) is good enough.
Yeah, let’s stick with obsolete (JPEG) formats, so no one needs to improve their loaders (very hard), and people can continue to use that funny video editor that came with some old version of Windows without converters (very evil, Irfanview does not have the same meme potential as WinRAR).
betacam was better than vhs, and was used in the broadcasting industry. It was better than vhs.
Betamax, which is the one you’re talking about, is not the same format, and actually equal to or slightly inferior to vhs.
I know what Betamax is.
That’s not actually true. Technology connections made a few videos about it.
Beta bs VHS: https://youtu.be/hWl9Wux7iVY
The broadcasting Beta format was basically a whole different format compared to that you could get at home. Completely unrelated.
Studio Beta https://youtu.be/hGVVAQVdEOs
isn’t that exactly what i said? Betacam (studio) vs betamax (consumer)
I really don’t get the WebP hate, it’s a good format. It’s better than PNG and JPG.
personally:
- forced to be a thing by google
- bad-ish support in some applications or places even to this day
- always used to further reduce filesizes which means you are most of the time transcoding lossy jpgs and making them more lossy (lemmy is specially into this), which means that the alleged better quality is actually useless
jxl would make a better replacement for this last thing since you can losslessly transcody jpgs with ~20% filesize and in my testing, pngs with ~50% (though jxl lossless decoding is cpu heavy right now), lossless transcoding also means you could keep jxls in server, then give it to the client if it supports jxl, or transcode back to jpg if they don’t (this saves bandwidth and storage at the cost of some cpu usage, but jpg transcoding is really fast and you can cache highly used images)
Though you couldn’t set the bar any lower without it turning into a joke.
Anyhow, to quote Wikipedia:
Comparing different encodings (JPEG, x264, and WebP) of a reference image, she stated that the quality of the WebP-encoded result was the worst of the three, mostly because of blurriness on the image. […] In October 2013, Josh Aas from Mozilla Research published a comprehensive study of current lossy encoding techniques and was not able to conclude that WebP outperformed JPEG by any significant margin
All while having significantly increased complexity. The blurriness problem was inherited from the video codec webp was based on. When you can’t beat an 18 years old format, don’t be surprised when people get irritated when you use your position to get it mandated into a standard, while later stalling actual improvements (JPEG XL).
Is JXL in actual use? Is it supported? I reckon it’s quite new, innit? D’you happen to.know how it compares to its peers?
It’s not supported by either Chromium or Firefox, which is part of the issue (Google basically decided against it with arguments that are much better suited against WebP, which they pushed some years ago).
There aren’t that many static image codec comparisons, for example there is https://giannirosato.com/blog/post/image-comparison/. https://afontenot.github.io/image-formats-comparison/ doesn’t even include WebP because the test suite uses features unsupported by it (YUV 4:4:4). In the ones I do find, WebP usually wins against good JPEG at low bitrates, but loses on high bitrates because of the blurriness issue. They both get beaten by JPEG XL and AVIF. Which one is better probably depends on whom you ask. The before linked comparison prefers JPEG XL by a slim margin, https://tonisagrista.com/blog/2023/jpegxl-vs-avif/ strongly favors JPEG XL.
JPEG-XL exists, is factually better, and is not patent encumbered.
How is WebP “patent encumbered”? It’s an open format.
Open is not the same as patent-free, the two things can coexist (and they do in the case of webp).
It’s open to write the code, but in order to be authorized to use it you have to get a permit from Google. You can’t eg.: fork from Firefox and use their permit (as you implicitly could with patent-free). Plus, Google can rescind their patent grant at any point, which they are bound to do once they secure ownership of the internet.
That’s just not true.
That’s still not patent free. Heck it’s right there: “irrevocable (unless we say so)”.
I didn’t say it was patent free, and the text doesn’t say “unless we say so”. It explicitly says the only way the patent grants can be revoked is if you enter patent litigation or enforcement regarding this code.
If you or your agent or exclusive licensee institute or order or agree to the institution of patent litigation or any other patent enforcement activity against any entity (including a cross-claim or counterclaim in a lawsuit) alleging that any of these implementations of WebM or any code incorporated within any of these implementations of WebM constitutes direct or contributory patent infringement, or inducement of patent infringement, then any patent rights granted to you under this License for these implementations of WebM shall terminate as of the date such litigation is filed.
That is still a problem, but what I was responding to:
It’s open to write the code, but in order to be authorized to use it you have to get a permit from Google. You can’t eg.: fork from Firefox and use their permit (as you implicitly could with patent-free). Plus, Google can rescind their patent grant at any point, which they are bound to do once they secure ownership of the internet.
is just wrong.
I have no problem with calling out Google’s anticompetitive behaviors, even in this case, but don’t lie about it.
Thanks for taking the time to disprove this
Yes, but that is actually almost “incompatible with every app and website”
A file format can not, by itself, be “incompatible” with a website. What matters is the browser, and Firefox at least is adding support (slowly), and they are the ones who matter ATM.
does jpeg xl support animated images?
It does, yes, but from what I gather it’s rather difficult to actually encode such an animated image compared to, say, a GIF. Display should work just fine.
PNG is lossless, so isn’t that like comparing apples to oranges?
Edit: Apparently webp can also be lossless. I don’t know anything.
It’s just tech illiterate being “oh no my image program not open this 10 year old new format”
